This is my area of interest and I just love that I can read it here too. I sift through many a conspiracy while having breakfast but this. This just
reminds me of how small and insignificant I am when compared to the bigger picture.

So...the Hubble telescope can see back in time and determine when a galaxy was formed? Sounds too fantastic to me. I don't even believe that the big
bang hypothesis (I won't even call it a theory, as theories are now being taken for and taught as fact, which they aren't) is very scientific. It's
pure speculation, like the age of the earth and the universe (which is infinite and actually has no beginning, time and space-wise). But 14 billion
years (which is an ironic unit of measurement that only applies to earth, so measuring in years before earth existed is ridiculous) is a long time and
claiming to observe events that happened that long ago is preposterous. Science is observation of phenomena in our universe, and you can't "back in
time " so I don't understand what the hell the point of the big bang hypothesis is other than to provide ANY answer that both science and religion can
agree on. Catholicism LOVES the big bang hypothesis because it can fit with creationism. Scientists love it because it can't be proven wrong because
it "happened" so long ago, and it stops the non-religious from asking how the world started without actually answering questions. Big bang hypothesis
is junk science.

You do know that a ton of the original NASA scientists were NAZIS right? With a legacy like that is it so hard to fathom that top secret knowledge is
withheld from the public and that NASA has a DUTY to lie about certain things? If you can't get that then you have to be very naive.

Interesting side note: The man Warner Vaun Braun dubbed "The father of modern rocketry" was a learned occultist and head of the Agape lodge of Crowley
and Reuss' sex magick order the O.T.O and self taught in rocket propulsion and explosives AND basically the inventor of solid rocket fuel. NASA has
some sinister origins, but Jack Parsons was actually a really good guy. And co-founder of Cal-tech's JPL, sometimes called Jack Parsons Laboratory.

You do know that a ton of the original NASA scientists were NAZIS right? With a legacy like that is it so hard to fathom that top secret knowledge is
withheld from the public and that NASA has a DUTY to lie about certain things? If you can't get that then you have to be very naive.

Interesting side note: The man Warner Vaun Braun dubbed "The father of modern rocketry" was a learned occultist and head of the Agape lodge of Crowley
and Reuss' sex magick order the O.T.O and self taught in rocket propulsion and explosives AND basically the inventor of solid rocket fuel. NASA has
some sinister origins, but Jack Parsons was actually a really good guy. And co-founder of Cal-tech's JPL, sometimes called Jack Parsons
Laboratory.

What the hell has some of the original rocket men being nazis have to do with nasa lying to the public?

So...the Hubble telescope can see back in time and determine when a galaxy was formed? Sounds too fantastic to me. I don't even believe that the big
bang hypothesis (I won't even call it a theory, as theories are now being taken for and taught as fact, which they aren't) is very scientific. It's
pure speculation, like the age of the earth and the universe (which is infinite and actually has no beginning, time and space-wise). But 14 billion
years (which is an ironic unit of measurement that only applies to earth, so measuring in years before earth existed is ridiculous) is a long time and
claiming to observe events that happened that long ago is preposterous. Science is observation of phenomena in our universe, and you can't "back in
time " so I don't understand what the hell the point of the big bang hypothesis is other than to provide ANY answer that both science and religion can
agree on. Catholicism LOVES the big bang hypothesis because it can fit with creationism. Scientists love it because it can't be proven wrong because
it "happened" so long ago, and it stops the non-religious from asking how the world started without actually answering questions. Big bang hypothesis
is junk science.

So how do you account for the observed fact that the universe is expanding or the observed background radiation? Both of which point to a big bang.
As for theory. ..sigh...stop being ignorant and know that the word theory means something else in science.

originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: gortex
Look back in time? How? Simulation? Sorry, just confused. Thanks for an explanation and I'll look to the comments if there's anything.

Every time you look at the stars at night you are looking back in time. The light from those stars started its journey to your eyeball thousands of
years ago, or in the case of the galaxies, millions of years ago. Hubble is looking at objects so far away that it's looking billions of years back in
time.

Light and other electromagnetic energy travels at 186,000 miles per second. This is a verifiable fact. Not a theory. It is something that can be and
has been tested, over and over and over.

Because light has a finite speed, it does not travel any distance in an instant. It take it time to travel from point A to point B. When you flip on
your light in a dark room, it may seem instant, but that is only because of how fast light travels and how short of a distance it is taking to light
up your room.

However, like anything traveling at a finite speed, it takes time to travel any distance, and the greater that distance, the greater the time it takes
to travel.

Sun light reflected from the Moon and radio signals take 1.5 seconds to get here to Earth, because the Moon's average distance from the Earth is
256,000 miles.

Sunlight takes just over 8 minutes to get from the sun to the Earth. When you look at the sun, you're seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago.

Alpha Centauri is a star that is about 4.3 light years from Earth. Something that is also verifiable through parallax measurements and trigonometry
(up to around 1,500 light years). Each light year is just under 57 trillion miles. So it's light takes just over 4 years to get here because again,
light travels at a finite speed of 186,000 miles per second. So when you look up at Alpha Centauri, you're seeing at it looked just over 4 years
ago.

The further out you look, the longer the light took to get here: The star Sirius - Just over 8 years as it's just over 8 light years away. Betelgeuse
- just over 642 years. Rigel - just over 772 years.

The Andromeda galaxy, which you can look up and see with your own eyes in the night sky is just over 2.5 million light years away, and that's how long
it's light took to get here. So when you're looking at it, you're seeing it as it was over 2.5 million years ago.

You do not have to take my word for it. There are plenty of physics experiments you can do to verify how fast light travels. After that, it's just a
math problem.

I would suggest that you take a break from the tin hat on the head, and do some in depth research on astronomers. The majority of which are not on
NASA's payroll, and are all over the world from many different countries.

Not everything dealing with space and the cosmos is about NASA. Too many here seem to think it does and really shows their ignorance about astronomy
and space when they make the statements they do.

I'm not a scientist so only have a limited knowledge of red shift but that's how they worked it out.

Before astronomers determined the distance to GN-z11, the most distant measured galaxy, EGSY8p7, had a redshift of 8.68. Now, the team has
confirmed GN-z11’s distance to be at a redshift of 11.1, which corresponds to 400 million years after the Big Bang

That's true, but without having actually been there to determine when the light in question was actually formed, or at what rate the universe actually
expanded, and lacking a means to actually and conclusively measure the distance between that light source and the Earth, both then and now, we can't
say with any semblance of certainty what age the light we observe from GN-z11 actually is. There's also increasingly complex considerations beyond
what I've already described. Photons have mass and are effected by gravity and possibly by other factors. We don't know what the photons might have
interacted with on their path to us, nor do we know that path to have been a straight line. It probably wasn't. Gravitational Lensing is a thing,
after all. Besides which, our civilization has only just barely stepped out from the caves. Our technology is only 200-300 years old. We certainly
don't know everything about the universe. We're practical cavemen far from such omnipotence. As such, there's likely many variables which we're not
even yet aware. It shouldn't be too shocking to imagine that a thousand or million years from now we might theorize GN-z11 to be a trillion light
years more distant than we currently expect it to be.

They're after all suggesting it could be 300 to 400 million years old, which is a sizable gap. So, even the researchers themselves are uncertain of
it's distance and age. This is why we call these things "scientific theory" rather than "science fact" though. The answer is they don't know and they
admit that. They're taking an educated guess, based on current science and available data.

Speed of sight? That would be the speed of electrical impulses sent to your brain via the optical nerve of your eye. Very fast.

As to why your eyes do not see the stars and other objects as well as a telescope: because of how our eyes are optically compared to a telescope.

Your eye has a focal length on the average of around 17mm.

Telescopes have focal lengths much, much larger than that. You could have a telescope with a 20 inch (500 mm) focal length. That gives it an enormous
amount of magnification compared to your eye.

Telescope are also made to "collect" light. An 8 inch reflector telescope has in 8 inch primary mirror in it that allows you to see very faint objects
that you eye can not.

The naked eye, if conditions are great (very dark area with no light pollution and good "seeing" conditions in the atmosphere) can see stars that are
a faint +6 mag of brightness (the full moon has a -12.5 mag brightness to give you and idea).

A small telescope can collect enough light to where you can see much fainter objects like +11 mag. Pluto is normally at +14 to give you an idea of how
faint it is.

You can see even fainter objects if you use a device that can collect the light over long periods (a camera). Our eyes are not built that way. In
fact, our eyes have evolved over time for better use in the daylight instead of night.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.